> But this is not how it works. Word from the App Store is sandboxed. Yes, that is how it works. Sandboxed apps can absolutely request access to an entire fold

> But this is not how it works. Word from the App Store is sandboxed. Yes, that is how it works. Sandboxed apps can absolutely request access to an entire folder. See here: https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Security/Conceptual/AppSandboxDesignGuide/AppSandboxInDepth/AppSandboxInDepth.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40011183-CH3-SW16 https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Se... > An app-scoped bookmark provides your sandboxed app with persistent access to a user-specified file or folder. But all of that isn't really relevant to what I was saying. You're bringing up technical details about how sandboxed apps work. I'm saying that sandboxes suck and I don't want them, particularly from Apple who will just use security as an excuse to take away more of my freedoms. > I guess these extra permissions are to provide a certain level of protection against such apps, which is good. I would rather not trade my freedom and liberty for even more annoying and absolutely useless security measures. You see the top comment on this thread now right? It's about how useless these dialogs are and how Apple has actually argued against them in the past. > There are many well-known incidents of trusted applications being compromised and backdoored. So? Don't update right away if your OS manufacturer can't be bothered to run a properly curated package management system that vets packages before anyone installs them. > But now that applications are distributed over the web, allowing unfettered access is insanity. I've been using desktop software for 30 years and for 25 of them, I've been downloading it from the Internet. My simple security measure are to verify sources, turn off automatic updates, don't update right away and read the news. Haven't had a problem yet. > The Linux ecosystem is also moving towards immutable base systems (Fedora Silverblue, NixOS) and restricted, sandboxed applications (Flatpak). Some Linux distributions are moving towards that. Anyway, I'm fine with immutable base systems. I'm even fine with sandboxed apps, as long as the permissions request infrastructure isn't annoying as it is in iOS and now macOS. And, as long as I can still install non-sandboxed apps without any further useless annoyance. > This is getting tired and old. No it's not. It's getting one tick closer with every release and if you want, we can certainly detail each time that macOS has changed to become more like an iPhone. Some part of you must realize that this is exactly what Apple would love to do as quickly as possible but they won't risk alienating users just yet. Do you really not see how Apple has been moving towards a less general purpose computer? I mean, I wouldn't even call macOS "general purpose" to begin with because you can only really install it on Apple hardware. Right from the very start with Apple, their OS has always been more like "Apple purpose" - software that you can only use for Apples purposes. > macOS is still an OS for 'general purpose computing'. Yes, for now. Just a little bit less with each release. > I wish Linux was as far as macOS with application sandboxing and system integrity protection. No thanks. The world needs less security theater, more actual security and more freedom to use our own bodies and properties as we wish.